“Comets are literally out of this world. As the flood began, the extreme pressure in the interconnected subterranean chambers and the power of supercritical water exploding into the vacuum of space launched about 50,000 comets, totaling less than 1% of the water in the chambers.” –Dr. Walter Brown, Creationist

“Scientists were stunned to find a huge range of minerals in the particles captured by NASA’s Stardust probe as it swooped past the comet Wild 2 on 2 January 2004. Many of the compounds could only have formed close to a star [Ed. like deep under the surface of the earth?]— far from the chilly outskirts of the Solar System where the comet first coalesced.” –Nature 440, 260 (16 March 2006) (See below)

Dr. Walter Brown is somewhat of a contrarian creationist … that is, he doesn’t subscribe to the ICR/AIG theory of the Flood of Noah, which currently is Dr. John Baumgardner’s Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT). He has his own theory called the Hydroplate Theory and the parts I’ve studied seem to make a lot of sense, including his comet theory, given this new “stunning” information about high temperature minerals in comets. You can read an overview of his theory online HERE. One interesting part of his theory is his belief that comets originated in the “Fountains of the Deep” (Genesis 7:11), contra to the mainstream view of the Oort Cloud Theory. Here’s a summary of his view …

Hydroplate Theory. Comets are literally out of this world. As the flood began, the extreme pressure in the interconnected subterranean chambers and the power of supercritical water exploding into the vacuum of space launched about 50,000 comets, totaling less than 1% of the water in the chambers. (These numbers will be derived later.) This water was rich in heavy hydrogen. As subterranean water escaped, the chambers’ pillars were crushed and broken. Also, the 10-mile-high walls along the rupture were unstable, because granitic rock is not strong enough to support a cliff greater than 5 miles high. The bottom portions of the walls were crushed into large blocks which were swept up and launched by the fountains of the great deep. Carried up with the water were eroded dirt particles, pulverized organic matter (especially cellulose from preflood forests), and even bacteria.

Droplets in this muddy mixture froze quickly in outer space. The expanding spheres of influence of the larger rocks captured more and more ice particles which later merged gravitationally to form comets. Some comets and rocks hit the near side of the Moon directly and formed large basins. Those impacts produced lava flows and debris which then caused secondary impacts. Water vapor condensed in the permanent shadows of the Moon’s polar craters.

Hyperbolic comets never returned to the solar system. Near-parabolic comets now being detected are returning to the inner solar system for the first time. Comets launched with slower velocities received most of their orbital velocity from Earth’s orbital motion. They are short-period comets with elliptical, prograde orbits lying near the Earth’s orbital plane. Since the flood, many short-period comets have been pulled gravitationally into Jupiter’s family. Comets launched with the least velocity are small comets. [For a more complete description of the hydroplate theory, see pages 102–135.]http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets8.html

Now look what they found recently in some comets …

Nature 440, 260 (16 March 2006) | doi:10.1038/440260a

Comet chasers get mineral shock

Mark Peplow, League City, Texas

Abstract
Stardust mission yields unexpected bounty.
The first results from a mission to catch dust from a comet’s tail have revealed a surprise: these balls of dirty snow are born of fire as well as ice. Scientists were stunned to find a huge range of minerals in the particles captured by NASA’s Stardust probe as it swooped past the comet Wild 2 on 2 January 2004. Many of the compounds could only have formed close to a star — far from the chilly outskirts of the Solar System where the comet first coalesced.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7082/full/440260a.html

And here’s another article …

NASA’s Stardust Comet Samples Contain Minerals Born in Fire

By Tariq Malik
Staff Writer
posted: 13 March 2006
6:17 p.m. ET

Pieces of a comet returned to Earth by NASA’s Stardust spacecraft apparently formed near the Sun or around another star altogether before being flung to the outer edges of the Solar System, mission scientists said Monday.

Researchers studying samples of Comet Wild 2 (pronounced “Vilt 2″) embedded in Stardust’s gel-filled collector found that the minerals formed under extremely high temperatures – such as those near a star – and not in the frigid cold expected at the Solar System’s edge, where most short-term comets originate.

“In the coldest part of the solar system we’ve found samples that formed at extremely high temperatures,” said Donald Brownlee, Stardust’s principal investigator at the University of Washington in Seattle, during a Monday press conference. “When these minerals formed they were either red hot or white hot grains, and yet they were collected in a comet, the Siberia of the Solar System.”

Why were these researchers so stunned and perplexed? Well … because this finding does not fit their idea of how the solar system formed? Comets supposedly originated in the Kuiper Belt and in the Oort Cloud and these regions are very COLD. Could we say it’s a failed prediction of their model of solar system evolution? Hmmm …

***************************************************

If these researchers had read Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory, they would not have been so stunned and perplexed because they would have known that comets quite possibly could have come from somewhere near the Sun — EARTH!!

You might be amazed at how well his theory explains a whole host of phenomena including the Lunar Maria, the Mid Oceanic Ridge, Meteors and Asteroids and the Geologic Record. Of course, his theory is not perfect and there are some difficulties … but isn’t that true of ALL theories? The old theory of comet formation being a beautiful case in point.

8 Responses to “Could Creationist Walt Brown be Right About Comets?”

Brown is not correct. He is wrong on every issue. Does he pay you to shill for him? We all know he refuses to debate and refuses (or rather is unable to) to publish his theory or any portion of it in any peer reviewed journal because it is such a total pile of rubbish.

I understand further Stardust reports on the net indicate that Wild 2 analysis supports pre-existing theories about cometary origins and give no credence to the idea that comets have a terrestrial origin – search google under Stardust/Wild 2 to find some of these. I also thinks the reports you quote refer to the age of Wild 2 being measured in the billions of years and that Wild 2 stardust grains include material from other stars. I wonder how any of these facts can be used to argue support for Brown’s theories?

This reminds me of Edward Bond’s”Early Morning,” a siurealrst little play about the unhappy marriage of Prince Albert, who was trying to lead a coup against Queen Victoria, whose conjoined twin sons Albert and George were split on the idea, and in which Victoria pounced on Florence Nightingale. All were blown up and ended up in heaven, amidst scenes of celestial cannibalism…Craig Y.

Further to my last comment, there are a number of problems with Brown’s ideas, not the least being that astronomers estimate the number of comets within the Solar System in the trillions. Brown cannot seriously propose that such a number originated from Earth (50,000 is several orders of magnitude less than trillions) and, if he cannot do this, then neither can he reasonably propose a terrestrial origin for some but not others, if only because he provides no evidential mechanism for distinguishing amongst them. Indeed, his estimate for the numbers of comets is so at variance with the numbers estimated by cosmologists that the whole idea seems to originate in the realms of fantasy.

Another problem with proposing a terrestrial origin for comets would be the frictional effects of the Earth’s atmosphere on material launched at escape velocity. Unlike rockets, for example, which accelerate relatively slowly and under constant acceleration, the hypothesized ‘subterranean chambers’ would have to impart sufficient launch velocity at source to escape Earth’s gravity well. This would reduce any launched material to plasma and offer little chance of it coalescing in the manner described.

Sadly, I’m not surprised by the level of vehemence and outright disrespect shown Dr. Brown by three of the four posters on this thread. Evolution doctrine does not suffer any conflicting theories, and its adherents must protect themselves (and their rice bowl).
However, the level of misdirection in the above comments is just too great to ignore. First, “it’s Just Rubbish!” is not much of a critique. Second, “reports you quote … show the comet [Wild2] to be 2 billion y/o and contain bits of other stars – - a statement like that ought to have at least SOME chance of the writer offering proof other than someone else said so. Third, if I understand the evolutionists’ theory at all, estimates of the number of comets in the solar system SHOULD be in the trillions, at least, but I ask the writer if trillions (or any for that matter) have been observed out there in the Oort cloud. I can answer the question though – - no, they haven’t. Presumptions based on flawed interpretations sometimes put numbers up into the 12 to 15-digits, but the basis of my complaint here is that, unlike most of the facts and ideas Dr. Brown relies on in his work, this item and the rest cited in these learned posts here have no truth about them – they’ve never been observed. Neither has the miracle of bazillions of years needed for any of this to work been observed. I’ll tell you what HAS been observed – about 5000 years of human history.

On Jan 14, 2006, Dr. Walt Brown accurately predicted (in an email received by me and others) what would be found in the Stardust space probe which landed on earth the next day. On April 29, 2006, Dr. Brownlee from the University of Washington (and the father of the Stardust mission), gave a lecture at the University about the preliminary results of the Stardust mission (I was there and have a recording). His lecture to the hundreds attending included statements that he was shocked, surprised and otherwise stumped by what was captured by Stardust (crystals that only form in high temperature and pressure, minerals that only form in liquid water, etc.). He could offer no explanation and didn’t know when he could. After the lecture I gave him a copy of Dr. Brown’s predicting email and a copy of Dr. Brown’s web version of the comet chapter. I told him that the reason he was shocked, but Dr. Brown was not, was because Dr. Brown had a scientifically sound argument for the origin of all comets. On August 18, 2009, I made a follow-up call to Dr. Brownlee at the University of Washington because NASA had just made an announcement that the amino acid glycine was also captured by the Stardust probe. Dr. Brownlee and other astronomers were also shocked by this (but Dr. Brown was not). For more than 10 minutes, Dr. Brownlee and I talked about the problems associated with standard theories on the origin of comets and about how all these problems are non-existent for Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. Dr. Brownlee told me he still had not read Dr. Brown’s work but he requested that I send him the link to Dr. Brown’s web book, which I did. He did not treat me like I was a nut case. He knows he has problems. So those above who think they can spout off with emotional nonsense rather than scientific rebuttal should take a lesson from Dr. Brownlee and go read Dr. Brown’s work. Good luck trying to refute the physics.